With advances in both communication and transportation, Christians across the theological spectrum have been forced to reflect more profoundly upon the nature of the world in which we find ourselves than in years or decades previous when the vast expanses of geography separated the disparate peoples of the globe to the point where for the most part each was little more than an abstraction in the minds of others evoking curiosity at the thought of peculiar customs or revulsion at the notion there existed human beings that practiced ways of life that seemed so (as was said in the time before political correctness constrained nearly everything an individual thought or said) foreign when compared against that considered familiar in a particular locality.
Some were ambitious to embrace the new circumstances from a standpoint of genuine magnanimity stemming from a realization that, despite the differences, all of humanity in terms of ontology or being were one in regards to physical existence under the watchful eye of God But more usually such an awaremess was adopted as a strategy to subvert the traditionalism they so despised that they rushed past the truth that, just because all people possess an underlying equality, it does not follow that all cultures, religions, or wordviews are with none being superior in the sense of producing an optimal existence for the greatest number or most closely corresponds to the truth as it exists external to human societies and civilizations.
In terms of conceptualizing how best to systematize an approach of dealing with the realities of international relations and geopolitics, two broad schools of thought have formed referred to as globalism and nationalism. A prominent subset to one that has come to prominence with the election of Donald Trump that has aroused considerable criticism as a result has come to be known as Christian nationalism. An article posted by the Episcopal News Service titled “Christian leaders, including Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, condemn Christian nationalism in letter” posted 8/5/19 touches on a number of reasons why that particular ideological perspective is allegedly inimical to true Biblical values. And thus, some deduce by default, Christian globalism or internationalism must more accurately reflect God's intentions for humanity as reflected by divine revelation as conveyed in Scripture.
Before being for or against something, the discerning individual should at least have an idea of what exactly it is that they are being asked to support or oppose. Nationalism is the belief that a geographic territory is most efficiently governed and organized culturally along lines arising from among the predominant group of a particular area rather than imposed by a distant power likely to do so for its own benefit irrespective of the values or preferences of the governed. Often these institutions and principles are derived form the culture of the predominant ethnicity such as their language, history, and assorted longstanding traditions. For example, the people of Japan have formulated their identity around things construed to be Japanese. In early modern history, the disparate city-states of Germany and Italy unified around their respective common languages.
For a complex nation such as the United States of America spanning the breadth of an entire continent and which over time came to be composed of people from nearly every corner of the Earth, only those on the verge of insanity would so blatantly deny the truth staring them in the face that the core civilization upon which the foundations rest are ostensibly European or most magnanimously categorized as Western. Yet given the fact it must be admitted that not everyone here is of that origin and the tendency of animosities between differing people groups to foment over time, a nation nearly universal in terms as to the point of origin of those coming to reside here, it only follows that a source as nearly universal or transcendent as it can ultimately be embraced irrespective of ethnic background would be required to provide a worldview around which a viable system maximizing liberty and security could be built. Since that conceptual framework believes that the nation's institutions reflect ideals derived in large part from the Judeo-Christian tradition even if formalized membership is not required in a congregation professing as such in order to participate as a full member, its critics have derisively categorized this body of presuppositions or assumptions “Christian nationalism” no doubt in part to capitalize on concerns regarding documented instances of violence perpetrated by the adherents of assorted nationalist movements ironically enough often supported by those activist leftists when furthering the causes of militant minorities.
So what exactly is it that a coalition that itself claims to be motivated by its own interpretation of theology oppose about so-called “Christian nationalism”? An epistle titled “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” sponsored in large part by the Baptist Joint Committee On Religious Liberty declares, “Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America's constitutional democracy.”
The letter proceeds to defend this allegation by claiming, “Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be a Christian. It often overlaps and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation.” Such assertions raise a number of profound questions.
Firstly, what exactly do the theistic globalists --- if we are to define them in terms of what they oppose as in the tirade they have not exactly told the readers of this ultimatum what exactly it is that they are for --- mean when they are insisting that the Christian nationalists are demanding Christianity be privileged by the state? Is this the early twenty-first century canard adorned in more sophisticated rhetoric about conservative Christians imposing their morality upon those holding to other creeds and ways of life?
But how is this different than what is done by a spectrum of progressives ranging from the nebulously theistic to those quite blunt in regards to their antipathy towards the Almighty? For example, among the foremost criticisms launched against “Christian nationalists” by the theistic globalists would be opposition to homosexual marriage as actualized by refusal on the part of a Christian baker to prepare a cake for a gay wedding.
So if it is an unconscionable outrage for the Christian baker to impose his morality on those making a lifestyle choice that he does not agree with, why is it acceptable for those demanding the cake be made in violation of the baker's conscience to impose their values upon him? It might be responded that, in a commercial marketplace were goods and services are bartered for in terms of an objective medium of exchange, the one agreeing to offer a commodity for the agreed upon tender of value ought not be granted the authority to render a moral decision regarding how the good or service offered is to be used.
If so, do the advocates of lax virtue intend to rise up as vociferously in opposition to what is referred to as cancel culture and deplatforming? For if a Christian baker should not be allowed to inquire as to what sort of relationship his baked good will be used to celebrate, on what grounds does a social network deny an individual access especially if the denied individual is not advocating what would be understood to be a traditional form of violence. For example, though assorted propagandists and social engineers would attempt to muddy the waters, there is a profound difference insisting that God intended marriage to be only between a man and woman or that only two genders exist and insisting that physical retaliation should be directed towards those holding to these stated behavioral practices.
Those denied a celebratory baked good will be far less harmed than someone denied access to a proprietary communications technology that has become pervasive throughout society. For example, all that a party denied a wedding cake would have to do is find another business to bake it. And given the artistic abilities for which those of the given lifestyle preference are noted, such would not necessarily precipitate that much of an inconvenience.
However, being booted from a social media platform for violating amorphously defined ideological preferences is a much more profound punishment. Such individuals may be subjected to both loss of livelihood and means to associate with those that they hold most dear. One could argue that what is being seen with those deplatformed over the articulation of sentiments at odds with the underlying worldview presuppositions of elitist technocrats is a phenomena not unlike the plotline of the 1990's drama “Nowhere Man” where the protagonist was removed completely from the socioeconomic infrastructure that facilitates participation in contemporary economic life and foretold in the Book of Revelation where those refusing to accept the Mark of the Beast in worship of the Antichrist will be unable to buy, sell, or trade.
A prominent lament among these theistic globalists is that the Christian nationalists treat other religions as “second class faiths”. But how is that any worse than the way proposed by the mystic technocrats who is they had their ultimate way would actually treat those with whom they are at variance in regards to policy as non-persons?
It must be admitted that there exist disturbing voices with the Christian Reconstructionist or Dominionist movements that would deny basic constitutional liberties and privileges of civic participation to those not belonging to recognized sanctioned churches of an authenticated orthodoxy. However, it must be pointed out that they are small in number and do not reflect the views of the vast majority castigated for professing what is categorized as “Christian nationalism”.
Continuing in the spirit of invoking poorly defined terms in the attempt to stoke the very sort of fear campaign that they accuse the Christian Nationalists of, the theistic globalists do a very lackluster job of explaining what it is exactly it is for one religion to treat another as a “second class faith”.
Pivotal to Christian doctrine is John 14:6 in which Jesus states, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father but through me.” Relatedly, Acts 4:12 teaches, “There the is no other name by which men can be saved.”
In terms of theology, most professing a traditional understanding of Christian belief contend that the only way to gain access to Heaven and to evade a negative Afterlife --- whether that means an eternity of conscious suffering in the fires of Hell or simply passing into nothingness of oblivion is not the purpose of this analysis --- is to plead for mercy provided by the substitutionary atonement of Christ and His subsequent resurrection from the dead. All other faiths, religions, and creeds (irrespective of the nobility of their teachings in terms of ethics or professed goodwill for mankind) come up short. From that standpoint, Christian nationalists believes that there is the one true faith and, from that perspective, better than all the others.
But how is that different deep down than what is believed by the devout adherents of any of the others? For example, at the heart of the Jewish faith is the belief that those that profess that as their religious identity, either by birth or by conscientious adoption of its creedal affirmations and liturgical practices, they are God's chosen people.
By the very definition of that, that is to say, even if by just a little bit, that they are better than everybody else. Adherents of that faith can deny it all that they want. But if such is not the case, why was it Ivanka Trump that converted from nominal Presbyterianism to Judaism when she married Jared Kushner rather than Jared Kushner converting from Judaism to mainline Christianity when he married Ivanka Trump? Given the leftwing causes she supports such as legalzed abortion and governement subsidized daycare, it is highly doubtful she had a profound conversion to the hardline ethical monotheism espoused by the Old Testament unmodified by Christ mitigating these requirements in the New Testament. And what if it had been Jared that agreed to convert for the sake of religious coherence for the benefit of the children?
Would his family have thrown open wide their arms for him in the same manner demanded of Christian parents hearing that their children have apostatized against the name of Christ in order to placate their lovers of a particular religious persuasion if they do not want to be accused of Antisemitism even if they have never done a single thing to a Jewish individual other than to disagree over the trinitarian or unitarian nature of the godhead? More than likely, he would have probably been metaphorically kicked to the curb and ostracized from his family.
And Judaism is one of the more civilized religions. Those departing from more heathen faiths face repercussions far more severe than the stern disapproval of an irate Jewish mother.
For example, in more rigorous versions of Islam such as those in which radical jihadism percolates, those converting from that tradition into some form of Christianity are often required to forfeit their very lives. This death can at times be inflicted by family members that feel that they have been dishonored by such a profound change of heart. In other instances, capital punishment for this sort of offense is inflicted by a number of regimes considered valued allies of the United States in terms of tax dollars in the form of foreign aide lavished upon these countries.
Repugnant as killing someone over a religious disagreement might be to the average contemporary American, one can understand it as a result of the Islamic mindset with that faith's absolute and rigid form of monotheism. What baffles the rational mind much more is the hostility of fanatic Hindus of whom there are surprisingly more in certain parts of the world than one might suspect.
Hinduism as a religion is about as elastic as one can get as it can be just about anything. There are Hindus that believe that the comprehensive All in its totality is what we might think of as “God” with the individuality we insist upon that we perceive is little more than an illusion. Yet to the more workaday individual that goes about living their life without giving too much reflection upon the abstractions of philosophy, Hinduism is a religion potentially consisting of untold millions of gods.
As such, one would think that if you were a Hindu and you learned that a family member or someone in a nearby village had come to believe in a deity named Jesus Christ, such really ought not get you that bent out of shape. After all, what is one more amongst a plethora already far too crowded to count or even keep track of? Surprisingly over the course of the past several decades, fanatic Hindu nationalists have become yet another threat beleaguered Christians living in the Third World have been forced to deal with.
In India, the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, spoken of favorable by Trump confidante Elon Musk and particularly Vivek Ramaswamy, regularly abetts harassment of Christians on the subcontinent and often turns a blind eye to worse atrocities on the part of fanatics not necessarily holding formalized membership in the movement's ranks but whom the movement's leadership is not going to go out of its way to condemn. According to a Progressive.org article titled, “Vivek Ramaswamy's Embrace Of Hindu Nationalism”, the aspiring Ohio gubernatorial candidate in 2022 spoke at a forum sponsored by Vishwa Hindu Parrishad, an organization accused of agitating various acts of physical violence against religious minorities in that particular Asian country.
It is in consideration of the world as it actually exists rather than how they would like it to be that those claiming to be so welcoming of humanity in all of its varied forms, persuasions, and ways of life are exposed as to just how little that they really know. For it is Christian nationalists that question the prudence of allowing any that just happen to wash up on the nation's shores without having to validate their intentions on how their professed values happen to mesh with those upon which America was built. For if where many of the adherents of these competing faiths hold sway rank among the most undesirable parts of the world in which to reside or even visit, what persuades the rational individual to conclude that those not simply originating from these parts but wanting to import wholesale here their comprehensive worldview to the point where it is not enough that those holding to the particular religious outlook get to live off to themselves but demand that you --- dear morally loose American --- will also be required to live by this competing religious system under threat of legal sanction or even violence.
Holding an opinion running parallel and often in accord with anti-Christian nationalism, Jesuit Matt Malone (editor and chief of America Magazine) writes of Franklin Graham in the April 17, 2017 issue, “We also talked about several other topics, including his views of Muslims and Islam, which I found unnuanced and myopic ... I found much of what he had to say to be ...insufficiently Christian, especially if charity is the principle mark of Christian discourse. I think he mischaracterizes Islam ... panting it as a very violent faith system. To my ear, this is an argument that is easily refuted by the reality that a clear majority of Muslims worldwide live in peace.”
Malone goes on to conclude , “...I have no doubt that the Rev. Graham's faith is deeply felt and that his views are sincerely held. But they are, surprisingly, far afield from a Catholic worldview. More surprisingly ... is that his views appear to be in serious tension with the more inclusive and sophisticated evangelicalism that is associated with his father.”
New York and Los Angeles snobs might assume that with his Southern accent that Franklin Graham is some sort of dimwitted hayseed or hick. If Franklin Graham seems less than keen on throwing the borders of the United States wide open to refugee resettlement or mass migration from those parts of the world where Islam predominates, it is because he has dealt on the ground with the way Muslims treat their own coreligionists and those of other religions happening to reside in some of the most war torn nations on the face of the planet first hand as part of his Samaritan's Ministry. Heaven forbid, but perhaps is the offices of American magazines were subject to the same sorts of jihadist violence as Samaritan's Purse facilities, perhaps Matt Malone's article would be closer in attitude to that of Franklin Graham.
Perhaps what Franklin Graham is trying to prevent in America is a replica of the Islamist assault against the Samaritan's Purse Hospital in Somalia.
The Jesuit propagandists at America Magazine lament that Franklin Graham's beliefs are far afield from the Catholic worldview. But how exactly so?
That Franklin Graham believes that his views are correct and that all others, even if one treats them charitably in that individuals are allowed to hold to them without fear of physical coercion are in error? How does this differ from the worldview of the Roman Catholic Church or at least contemporary iterations of that institution that does not utilize force or threats thereof to impose its will as in the Middle Ages upon the seemingly non-compliant or those construed as advocating a competing understanding of doctrine?
One of the appeals off contemporary Catholicism when approached from a conservative perspective is a steadfast willingness to insist that right and wrong exists in this world even when those wielding power --- increasingly even within the church's own hierarchy --- insist that such do not in the rush to embrace considerations such as expediency and inclusion. But whereas Low Church Protestants such as Franklin Graham might accomplish this through emphatic verbal repetition that there is only the one path to what would be a positive and joyful experience of the Afterlife, the Catholic way of promoting a similar message would be by restricting access to the elements of the Eucharist through which the true adherent of the Roman Catholic faith believes there is no other means to achieve salvation but denies it to those in explicit doctrinal disagreement.
This reality places Matthew Malone in what many would no doubt consider an unenviable position. For it either makes him a hypocrite for criticizing Franklin Graham for believing something similar as to the existence of absolute truth or that he in fact does not believe that the Roman Catholic Church is really so infallible after all in regards to the way in which the institution applies and implements that particular denomination's interpretation of doctrine and dogma as so perfect as to exclude all others. Perhaps Matt Malone would be happier or more philosophically suited for membership in another tradition such as Episcopalianism. For as the late comedian Robin Williams remarked, you pretty much get to enjoy nearly the same rituals as the Catholics bit without so much of the attendant guilt.
Of his esteemed Catholic worldview that Matt Malone lifts up as superior to the inferior hillbilly faith of Franklin Graham, the essayist writes, “On the other hand, I have a Christian obligation to welcome anyone who wants to enter my home as a guest.” But at the highest levels of Roman Catholicism, is that really the case?
The Vatican, itself considered an independent state in terms of diplomacy and international law, in defense of the free movement of people across international frontier,s criticized President Trump's call for increased vigilance in regards to immigration enforcement. However, the Holy See does so from behind walls probably higher than anything that could be erected in the span of a single U.S. presidential administration even for an occupant of the Oval Office experienced in the complexities of elaborate construction projects.
So can it be explained that, if the Pope in Rome and the vast treasures that he oversees as the head of one of the richest institutions on the planet can sit comfortably in such a fashion, why ought the United States not be allowed to protect its territorial holdings and people with a technology so simply and harmlessly passive that the example mentioned here proves that is has been known of and worked for centuries?
In heated dialog of a religious variety that seems to impact the very nature of the society in which we live, it is easy to distort the definitions of common terms beyond their established meanings to the point that these become almost entirely different concepts. Neither side of this debate has been able to resist this particular temptation. However, in this prominent condemnation of Christian nationalism, the advocates of theistic nationalism are particularly explicit in having done so.
For example, foremost among these misidentified terms is “democracy”. Democracy, at its most basic, is the form of government where votes are conducted for the purposes of determining majority rule.
Is this the definition theistic internationalists and pluralists want to imbue the term with? For if they do, they cannot turn around and complain if the majority returns an outcome not to the likings of the anti-Christian nationalist posture. For if a resistance is organized to what the majority has decided, definitionally the pluralists have adopted the antidemocratic characteristics claimed to be opposed when manifested by Christian nationalists.
Do those opposing Christian nationalism wish to clarify or correct their position thatwhat they claim to defend is actually a constitutional or republican form of government? Then that is another story.
Unlike a direct democracy, a constitutional republic allows those meeting the requirements of citizenship and other predetermined criteria to select those who will hold elected office. Differentiating this system still further from that of a democracy is the constitutional aspect which limits the powers that that those holding office may impose or exercise over those that they have been authorized to govern.
So what mainstream proponent of Christian nationalism has advocated the abolition of the U.S. Constitution as understood through an originalist interpretation? If anything, alleged adherents of this nebulously defined ideology categorized as a pernicious threat by secularist elites usually stand among the most stalwart contemporary defenders of the First and Second Amendments.
If anything, the opponents of Christian nationalism (such as those signing their names to the activist epistle under consideration in this analysis) are the ones that often pose the greatest danger to America's traditional liberties. For example, it is not unheard of for those holding to a position antithetical to that of Christian nationalism to argue that because figures connected with the founding of America did not hold to the orthodoxies regarding race and gender now imposed under threat of socioeconomic ostracism, these figures must have their positive commemorations removed from official public recognition. Instead what must be put in the place of such displays in order to placate disgruntled activists is a reflective dwelling upon the accomplishments of aggrieved minoirities.
The purpose of which has little to do with formulating a more scientifically accurate understanding of the past in terms of what happened at a particular point in time. Interestingly enough, those advocating this deconstructionist or postmodern perspective will rank among the foremost in insisting that it is impossible to arrive at an objective or definitive understanding of history. What matters is the narratives, particularly of those in power, constructed regarding these sorts of events.
The reason for doing so is nothing less than calling into question the very legitimacy of the institutions of the United States of America and even the continued existence of the nation as traditionally understood. For example, because it has been discovered that those esteemed as the Founding Fathers were less than perfect in terms of personal character, it is not enough for we ourselves to expand upon the nobility of that heritage by striving to apply that to all mankind even if the ones that codified these sentiments fell short in that regard. Instead we are for some reason obligated to renounce them in their entirety rather than to simply be critical in part.
This sentiment is perhaps most explicit in regards to the area of civil rights and liberties as expressed in the proposal to abolish the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and its underlying political philosophy. It is argued not only that since whatever disputed technology those seeking to curtail freedom at any given moment oppose such as social media or firearms more advanced than a single shot musket did not exist at the time of the Constitution's ratification, these disputed technologies along with amendments pertaining to such both need to be abolished or at least denied to unauthorized citizens not favored by the regime. Such a perspective is derived in large part from the assumption that rights are not a gift bestowed by God upon each individual that cannot in most instances be taken away sch as in the case of speech and belief. Rather, these privileges are instead viewed as as extended by government not so much for the benefit of the individual but instead for the utility and efficiency of whatever elite might be prevailing in power at any given moment.
For example, those that run America at present believe that is is in their own best interests to grant the masses a degree of latitude in the area of expression when compared to that of other regions around the world and assorted periods of history. But that is not to say such will always be the case. In the future, parties wielding power at that time might come to the conclusion that their interests would be better served along the lines of a police state where the articulation of sentiments deemed not to be in the social interest (in other words that disagree with ruling authorities) will not be allowed and severely punished up to and including the forfeiture of property, imprisonment, and perhaps even execution as in the style of history's most repugnant regimes.
Such an outrage might be condemned in a milieu that still values the First Amendment. But what about in a future where such might have been revoked in an ethos where these sorts of liberties are no longer construed as protecting the individual from the arbitrary whims of the state but dependent upon how well an individual adheres to the the preferences of these institutions.
Related in importance to the prevailing understanding as to what is meant by democracy and the source from which the protections referred to as rights stem is what exactly constitutes the concept of violence and who exactly is responsible for it when such acts are perpetrated. In this instance as well, the opponents of Christian nationalism prove that they are perhaps a greater danger both physicaly and spiritualy than Christian nationalism to the American people. The press release posted at the Episcopal News service states, “We've seen it in violent, even deadly ways. Christian nationalist views can inspire violence --- even against houses of worship.”
Such a statement is no doubt a reference to the shocking incident of Antisemitic violence that occurred in Pittsburgh when Robert Gregory Bowers murdered eleven people at Tree of Life Synagogue. Bowers might have been a nationalist in terms of claiming to act on behalf of a particular sort of people, ethnicity, or nationality. However, nowhere in the public sentiments expressed by this individual did he articulate a theology reminiscent of mainstream Biblical trinitarian Christianity.
So just how do the critics of Christian nationalism want to define “violence”? For one would be hardpressed to find Christian Nationalists that advocate the use of physical force as a part of activities intended in the furtherance of policy or political objectives.
One might formulate a response such as what about the AltRight rally in Charlottesville or as part of a movement referred to as the Proud Boys. Yet while these collections of individuals and activists could be categorized as nationalist, neither of these movements could be said to be explicit as self-identifiying as Christian.
And even if most would turn a wary eye upon things those affiliated with a number associated with these movements have said, advocated or done, in most of these confrontations if they came to physical blows, most of the time such were actually responses to instances instigated by extremists from the other end of the ideological spectrum. Thus, through alliances and affiliations with activists identifying with Antifa, Occupy Wall Street, or Black Lives Matter, those claiming to oppose Christian nationalism from the standpoint of professed spirituality or organized religion are far more likely to be connected with an act of violence legitimately categorized as such --- not the verbal articulation of a sentiment at variance with an ideological or policy preference of the avowed Left --- than an adherent of Christian nationalism.
Those trending towards the left side of the political spectrum have been perfecting their assorted word games for well over a century. Those discerning enough to decipher it will note that Christian nationalists were not necessarily accused of perpetrating acts of violence. Linguistic sticklers will point out that the precise phraseology read, “Christian nationalist views can inspire violence.”
Such is the rarefied reflections of jurisprudence and political theory referred to as covering your own backside. For you see in the minds of this hodge podge of revolutionary movements that ultimately have very little in common other than a shared desire to destroy this nation as traditionally constituted the average adherent of Christian nationalism does not have to have committed any violent act to be accused of inspiring violence. It is sufficient grounds to be found guilty that you simply exist or to have articulated a sentiment that so upsets the mentally imbalanced that they are in the popular parlance “triggered”.
Such an excuse on the part of either the mob or even the functionaries of the state can be invoked to justify all sorts of physical harm and the destruction of property on the part of the perpetrator while pinning the blame on the part of the victim is a process not all that dissimilar to that which occurs in the mind of an abusive spouse that slaps a spouse across the face for daring to get a bit too sassy. This tendency also manifests itself in the form of regulations against so-called “hate speech” and social media companies that deplatform members sometimes for doing nothing more than promoting a worldview at variance with that of the company's board of directors or another set of evern more accurate facts while overlooking pages that ironically call for the execution of the demographic classes these nebulous community standards that no elites can bother to define were allegedly implemented in order to protect.
The nature of government in a fallen world is such that the power to implement the decrees of these institutions must emanate from a located center of truth reflecting some manner of philosophy or theory as to what constitutes an ultimate truth. In relation to worldview, theologian Francis Schaeffer postulated that the choice to be made comes down to a foundation either built initially by the changing wisdom of man or the eternal wisdom of God.
By Frederick Meekins
